waclaw

This is a new game (I'm not interested at what the engine is made - it's not my problem) and I have my expectations (we all have them) - I hope to increase the quality of the product and the new content, so I made a list of what would make me particularly interested in - and this everything.   if I have to pay another 55 bucks there must be something more than a new campaign / scenarios and a number of new vehicle models     Wiggum15   you are not aggressive, they just are oversensitive

and I repeat it again - I want to see improved in the new CMB: - Textures of snow - I do not want to look at a copy transferred from CMFI - Sounds (separate ambient for winter) - New volumetric effects - Particle effects - New UI - I do not want to look at is not scratched tank - air bomb hit   fixes, which I'm waiting for 8 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XKbn27moLs
My first CMBS recording try.

Functionality, UI and gameplay features cannot be modded in Combat Mission, cosmetics can though.
 
Here is Kiemes fantastic vehicle skin, buildings, and uniform mods.
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117795-kiemes-modding-corner/page-28
 
Scroll down towards the bottom of that page and you will find the master list.
 
Waclaws great sound mod- http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118413-hqs-22-black-sea-shock-force-afghanistan-final/

Wow.  What a big difference this sound mod makes to the game.  I also have your CM Red Thunder sound mod which is excellent.  I hope you plan on making one for CM Bulge when it is released.  Thanks waclaw!  

Made new video:
 

I am using Waclaws majestetic HQS sound mod. I have modded it a little (more death screams and explosions, tweaked bullet zips) but 98% of the sounds are Waclaws. Highly revommended.
 
It is nice that you enjoyed the video. I plan to make more, and get better with making them. Actually, I make new one today.

Had to evict them out.
 

Waclaws sound mod has plenty of cursing!
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118413-hqs-22-black-sea-shock-force-afghanistan-final/

As a former Bradley crewman, I think it sounds just about right.

QB mech inf, auto buy
 

very unlikely to be fixed on this engine. cmx3 maybe

Quite interesting scan of document regarding Ukraninan forces losses in Debaltsevo: http://higgs.rghost.ru/6Fnm8ZvGl/image.png
Alleged source: SBU (Ukranian Security Service).
Disclaimer: Possibly a fake.
 
Figures:
Irrecoverable losses (KIA?) : 3695
Injured: 4262
POW: 183
Tanks lost: 248
AFVs: 278
Artillery: 260
Automobiles: 295
Aircraft: 3
 
 

I've played all the campaigns in CM-Black Sea, and I have noticed that soldiers occupying turrets in HUMMWVs are unrealistically vulnerable to small arms fire. I've had HUMMWVs engage dismounted troops at 400m, and had the turret gunners killed within 30 seconds, and then their replacements killed the next turn.
 
I've an active duty combat arms soldier in the US Army for 19 years, and I have had experience with using HUMMWVs downrange on combat deployments. It seems like it would be easy to pick off a turret gunner, but in reality, it is very difficult for someone to hit a guy in a turret, even back when they only had a forward facing plate (or in some cases no protection at all). The gunners in the HUMMWV turrets with 360 degree protection and bullet proof view ports are effectively invulnerable to small arms fire at anything beyond close range plunging fire (except for a one in a million round that slips in through a small gap), especially if they lay low in the turret. They actually do quite well in urban combat against fire coming from multiple directions and elevations in my experience. Gunners do occasionally get hit, but it is rare.
 
The game is fantastic. However I think this mechanic needs to be fixed to reflect reality. As it is I've found the HUMMWVs so vulnerable that they cannot even be pushed forward against realtively light resistance (which is not reality).

Hi Guys
I've been discussing this on another CM forum on the BLITZ war gaming club forums and have support.
This is a two pronged question
 
Basically I can take just Javs and no tanks and for 1000 points - 10 Jav teams kill all russian armour which is worth 6000 points or more.
Javs are too easy to spam  and have totally unbalanced the game for PBMs which we all play.
Even scenarios are quite difficult.
 
Javs should be increased in rarity to allow less of them - same goes for Enginner teams and trucks which carry 2 spare javs.
My questions to the devs is how many Javs are on hand to US forces and what is reasonable?
Are there stock piles of these things?
 
 
This is a problem combined with the fact Russian forces should have more Tanks at a cheaper cost and cheaper troops.
They are a massive army at lower quality, and the US less in numbers more in quality and tech.
So there should be some balance there to reflect this.
Current purchasing in PBMs doesn't reflect this.
yes to an extent maybe players need to agree on this but it should also be part of the games costings to make it easier.
 
Your engines limitations has pretty much put the Russian supersonic AT Missile system at a massive disadvantage with it not being able to sit behind hills and buildings and spot/shot safety.
Then the jav spamming which is ok for US forces.
Now PBMs which are really popular are out of wack.
 
I was hoping the Devs would have offset this with costings and rarity for the forces concerned to help fix this.
 
Whats your thoughts on this?
AS a PBM player - if im US im killing 15-18 tanks for loss of none with Javs and my opponents are giving up.
This is with using 4-5 jav teams and some engineers who come with them.
Using trucks for cheap ammo and mobility they come with Javs - couple of them 
So seeing this in action and playing many PBMs from both sides I'm wondering if anything can be done to balance it out?
Cheers
 

OK, long story short, no new Malta foliage is needed beyond the CMSF cacti I already brought in courtesy of mjkerner.
AND as long as we carefully utilize the existing foliage from CMFI. Only use certain stuff for Malta maps to match the "garrigue" ecosystem <holds pinky out>
Garrigue or phrygana is a type of low, soft-leaved scrubland ecoregion and plant community in the Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub biome. It is found on limestone soils around the Mediterranean Basin, generally near the seacoast, where the climate is moderated but with annual summer drought. I dorked around a tad more with the beutepanzer T-34. I fixed a camo spot mismatch on the turret, added some grease and grime, sponge desaturated the camo spots  and so I am calling it done but if any budding vehicle modder wanted to continue any embellishments on her, PM me and I can provide the photoshop files.

are there any more civilian vehicles to bring in from anywhere - i have an oil refinery car park that can only take so many blue ladas!

Kieme CMBS additional flavor objects 5 (monument)
 
Could be used as war memorials, gate guards of military bases or museum props.
Special thanks to agusto for the idea.
 
This mod adds 3 new flavor objects to the game, in form of three world war 2 russian tanks (T-34/76, T-70m, JS-2m). The models and textures were ported from combat mission red thunder game.
These flavor objects are not present in any game map created since now, but they will be available for map makers from now on if they decide to use them.
You will find these in game's editor, under "monument" in the flavor objects 2 Group.
 
Note: these flavor objects do not provide cover, don't block shots or vehicles movement and are sometimes glitchy with their shadows.
 
Download: https://app.box.com/s/odn7zwh274fd2chzwfvhtafmqoya04mj
 
Previews:

Meh, no, I disagree.
If the model is complex, but shows somewhat unrealistic results under extreme conditions ( Spotting is perhaps too difficult in mist, at night ), I'll still take that rather than a dumbing down of the complexity.
 
( I'm not even personally convinced that the result is off anyway - I've been out in the wilderness 200+km from any light pollution and at night it is very very dark. Add mist and I can buy that you wouldn't see a tank right in front of you. Just my opinion ).

I'd recommend to read this thread:
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111876-hull-down-spotting-disadvantage/

Ignorance, denial, excusions, then admitting observations of a few strange things over the years - until finally several bugs in spotting mechanism were admitted. And the fanbois have hailed - once again - a bugged functionality...

Am I the only one noticing the same in this discussion?

I have mentioned a few parameters that could give the shown results some plausibility. We have learned the camouflage effects are not present. But if they are not present, then the results that are shown are not plausible.

And when I hear the explanation that the model was way too complex to come to quick conclusions, then as an engineer I must laugh. Why? Because the engineer knows: not the complexitiy of a model has any significance if it is good, but there is ONLY one thing, that determines if a model is good: who knows the answer?
If it works as expected. That's the ONLY measurement for the quality of a model. Not it's complexity.

And this understanding of scientific engineering brings up PLAUSABILITY.

So the question is not if a customer understands the complexities of a model. What counts is, when the computer is switched on, that it works as expected. No matter if I could explain it away with hardware settings or driver problems. That's what fans want to hear, but the average customers wants that it works. The excuses are not of interest.

If camouflage effects in this case can be excluded, and switched off trees and smoke, then I miss the ability to accept, that the model in this case has a big plausability problem.

And btw, if the maker of a model does not understand, why his model behaves in a certain manner, then I always am reminded what my professor in theoretical electrical engineering teached us:
What is the best model?
A: the most simple one that works.

So maybe, if their models are too complex for them, they should reduce it to a level of complexity they are able to understand and control?